Fritz Griffith wrote: >>James Higgo wrote: >> >> >I don't see the need for alternative theories. And like Liebnitz's >>monads, >> >each containing an entire world, there is no need for communication >>between >> >observer moments. >> >>BM: Hard for me to swallow that literally. My question for you and Fritz >>Griffith: how do you define observer moment, *precisely* ? > >Well, as precise as I can make my definition: > >An observer moment is your experience of everything at a certain moment that >lasts for a duration of one plancke-time. Your current thought, >understandings, knowledge, emotion - everything that makes up your >perception of you and your universe, concious and subconcious (in other >words, the exact state of your brain) is looked at in one single moment of >plancke time. > >Now, if you can accept that an observer moment must contain the perception >of a smooth, consistant flow of time, and that it perceives to exists in one >moment within this time, as I have been trying to explain in previous posts
OK. I have an intuitive understanding of what you are saying and I am open to such kind of inspiration. But my demand of an explanation is far greater. In particular I reject anything based on any empirical experience and experiments except as inspiration. To be sure I accept only natural numbers and their effective relations. More generally I don't take for granted any of the following words: <<Observer, experience, everything, moment, duration, Planck-time, current thought, knowledge, emotion, perception, "my", universe, conscious, state, brain, smooth, consistent, flow, time.>> Eventually all these world should be defined in term of arithmetical relations before I understand your definition. >- then I ask you, how do you know that you do not simply exist as this >single observer moment, believing, subconciously, that you actually lived >right up until this moment, and that in an instant that moment will pass? How do I know ...? I just don't know that (and with comp, I don't believe it either). Bruno
